Mass shooting on Bondi Beach

Netanyahu has some cheek to cast blame on the Australian government when Israel's genocide must be the single most compelling reason someone could be radicalised to perform heinous acts of terror like those in Sydney.

Similar from the Rabbi of Ireland on Morning Ireland today saying there is widespread anti-semitism in Irish media and society. Claims like this must be countered by pointing out being anti-genocide, pro Palestinian life, and pro peace for both sides, is not the same thing as hating Jews or supporting Hamas, and their conflation takes away from the recognition of the dangers of real anti-semitism.

Israel's genocide does not justify acts of terror or anti-semitism but it must be part of the conversation.

@The_Kew_Tour wrote: That does not justify yesterday. No ifs or buts there. But the Israel government have take some blame for yesterday.

This is self-contradictory. If Israel is partly to blame for yesterday's attack, as you suggest, then you are at least partially justifying the attack on the part of the shooters.

Campaigners and lobbyists for Israel have no traction here. Their bullshit doesn't wash. People can easily see through it. There's no real right wing media here to sell it for them.

Where as if you look at the state of the media in the UK, and the way everything with Gaza and Israel has been reported over the last couple of years, it's absolutely toxic. The media are more than happy to row in behind Israel, because they're killing brown Muslim people.

Why are you rambling about sandwiches for? There’s a lot of words there it any attempt to answer the question.

How could WE make it worse?? Why is it our problem?

You said that the group of Muslims that hate the west were a problem. Another poster said it was a problem in Western society. I agree. Now it’s not our problem? Are we not part of that society?Striving to alienate and increase the number of radicalised Muslims that hate the west feels like the exactly opposite of the solution to that problem.

It's like Sinn Fein used to justify the atrocities carried out by the IRA by saying that the British were to blame.

Likewise, saying, as the poster did, that Israel were partly to blame for yesterday's attack, is partly justifying the attack on the part of the shooters, and saying it is not is self-contradictory.

What facts about the shooters are you awaiting? One will like likely be charged, that won’t be prejudiced. But,

Both names released. From western Sydney. Address was in social media. The father was the one licensed for firearms. The son was connected to individuals who were previously arrested/charged for ISIS. He was born in Australia. IS flags found at the scene.

You're saying that "muslims" are a bigger threat than the IRA were.

Tell me, how many attacks have there been by muslims in the UK over the last 20 years. Compare that to the 70's & 80's with the IRA.

Your indoctrination prevents you from seeing that has nothing to do with Irish people calling for peace that are labelled anti-semitic, and in fact goes against what they want.

Is English not your first language or is it just logic that is foreign to you?

Blame identifies factors that contributed to an event.

Justification is a claim an action was permissible or right.

If someone leaves valuables visible from the outside through a window and they are burgled, their action was a contributing factor, but it does not justify the burglary.

Blame does not imply justification, that is a false premise.

Mod - warned for personal abuse

You haven't thought this through, I'm afraid.

Blame in the sense we're talking about here goes a bit further than merely identifying factors contributing to an event, it is assigning responsibility for the event. So when the poster said that Israel must take some of the blame, they were assigning some of the responsibility for the event to Isreal.

In other words according to the poster, there were at least two responsible groups, the shooters and Isreal.

It is called blame-shifting, and is a way of partly justifying the actions of one party on the basis that they were provoked by another party.

The Provos had one beef with one country and it was a domestic issue not an imported issue.

Radical Islam in europe and the west and the religion as a whole in europe and the west is an imported issue, it doesn't have to be here in the first place.

Again Radical Islam has destroyed numerous countries all over the world so why would we want to risk it gaining any place in the west.

Once again you fail to see that I was merely using them as an example of why it is good security practice to do extra checks to certain countries that may have a terrorist threat originating from them. So I don't care if the percentage is lower or higher the fact is if there is a terrorist risk from certain subsection of society then extra precautions have to be taken when dealing with people from that background fair or otherwise.

True: Israeli actions in Gaza → Radicalisation → Increased likelihood of attacks

False: Blame → Justification

Understanding the difference between blame and justification does not require much thought, on my part.

Let me show you where your blame-shifting framework falls apart. Your claim that identifying any upstream factor in radicalisation justifies it would make it impossible to identify the root cause of any political violence without being accused of endorsing it.

We can demonstrate the absurdity of the logical fallacy that blame is the same as justification with substitution:

The Iraq War contributing to the radicalisation that produced ISIS is partially justifying ISIS attacks.

The Treaty of Versailles contributing to conditions that enabled Hitler's rise is partially justifying Nazism.

You are insisting blame means justification because you cannot see the difference or you choose not to as it is contrary to your narrative.